First steps towards a police state.
Have you ever been to Australia? Well into a police state long time ago...
Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
181–190 of 363 posts
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#182After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their power to an unacceptable degree.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
i dont know man, as a non-american, why do you consider your constitution with so much regard as being bulletproof? cant your government just change it? like any other governments do? whats so sacrosanct about it?
> cant your government just change it? Short answer: no. The federal government (Congress) can propose amendments, but ratification requires the approval of a 2/3 majority of the 50 states' legislatures (38/50). And remember that in the US, the governments of each state are not just sub-divisions of the federal government, but totally distinct entities with their own constitutions, legislatures, elections, etc. The f…
> So, to change the US Constitution, 39 separate governments need to agree,
In practice, you simply need the minimum majority of the supreme court to agree with an 'interpretation' of the constitution that gives you what you want.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#184After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
Kiwi here, we have? What are you referring to? We have a rather dim outlook of Australian federal/state government overreach too, and some of their populist policies that discriminate against us, often with racist origins. And we've often enjoyed a TV drama or three recounting horrendous corruption in various Australian police forces. (I highly recommend the Underbelly series')
New Zealand had some of the toughest lockdowns in the entire world. It only just lifted the last of the travel restrictions (https://covid19.govt.nz/international-travel/when-new-zealan...). It mandated vaccinations in all kinds of ways, including firing hundreds of nurses at the height of a pandemic for what appears to be the worst kind of virtue signalling I have ever seen.
The latest democratic crisis involved handing over effective control of water assets to unelected "regional representative groups" based on race. (https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/planned_three_waters_enti...)
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
What extensive censorship of media? Australian's have plenty of 'constitutional rights', the right to vote, the right to property, the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion.
Lot's of videogames have had to be modified to be released here, in recent memory Hotline Miami 2, Stick of Truth, Fallout 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_...
Yes there was no R rating for a long time, and the ASRB still takes a negative view of illicit drug use in games. But is 'cant use illicit drugs in games' the definition of excessive media censorship?
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#186After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…
There are ways around Constitution. Constitutional courts do fun things to accommodate sitting governments. But at least it makes the process very difficult and prolong it enough to give public some glimpse. Well, in most cases.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't remember the late Stephen Conroy of the Labour Party who is responsible for single-handedly imposing sweeping Internet censorship laws onto the Australian public and mandatory ISP level filtering with the public not having the right to know what has been blacklisted? From the horse's mouth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral... : > In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 mill…
Both major parties have a terrible track record on surveillance and censorship, but one is still much worse than the other. I'd rather have Labor push some bullshit legislation then shelve it when it's unpopular than the Liberals who just ram it through because God told them to. Btw those "90% of Australian Internet users being censored" was a couple of major ISPs putting in a DNS block that can be worked around in 5…
> Btw those "90% of Australian Internet users being censored" was a couple of major ISPs putting in a DNS block that can be worked around in 5 seconds.
It is relatively simple for a technically savvy user, with a caveat.
A few years ago I noticed that the NBN router I had configured to use Cloudflare (or NextDNS) servers was dishing out my own ISP's DNS server IP's again. Upon a closer look it turned out that at some point the ISP had pushed a firmware update that: a) defaulted DNS settings to their own; b) would no longer accept any non-ISP IP addresses for the DNS configuration. Begrudginly, I ended up repartitioning the home network to create a distinct VLAN and adding a separate, 3rd party manufactured, Wi-Fi router with its own DHCP server to serve up the DNS configuration I wanted. If such shady practices are not vile and not authoritarian, I do not know what is. Most locally available mobile 4G/5G routers do not even have an option of overriding the DNS settings.
We all have to be grateful, though, that the Almighty has not revealed the BGP blackholing as the 11th commandment to ScoMo in his late afternoon wet dream.
> These days it's probably more like 20% because most people are on one of the newer ISPs like Aussie Broadband that don't truck with that nonsense.
A quick scan of WiFi networks in the immediate area of my residence has revealed that Telstra NBN is by far the most popular choice. Telstra has chosen to cozy up to the government and to self-censor itself.
> Passing the AA bill in 2018 was a much bigger failure from Labor […]
The anti-encryption law was rammed through the last few hours of the last day of the Parliament 2018 with full support from Labour. They did have a choice of delaying the vote for two months (until February 2019), but they did not:
«Speaking to the media on Friday, Mr Shorten said Labor had ultimately backed the Assistance and Access Bill — giving security agencies new powers to obtain the encrypted communications of criminal suspects — as he felt the need to reach a compromise before the Christmas break.
"I thought it was important that we reach at least a sensible conclusion before the summer on the important matter of national security. We will seek to improve the legislation in the new year. There are legitimate concerns about the encryption legislation but I wasn't prepared to walk away from my job and leave matters in a stand-off and expose Australians to increased risk in terms of national security," he said. […]
Labor had been pushing for amendments after the government issued a sudden demand for the legislation to be passed before the summer break»[0].
It has been nearly four years since the bill was inflicted upon Australians, and Labour has been coy and mum so far about introducing any amendments to the Ass Access Bill!
[0] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bill-shorten-says-la...
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#188No post body was provided.
Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#189Re: Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
#190After a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn…
When I was young, the thought of a "Constitution" requiring a supermajority to modify seemed arcane. "If it's the will of the people, let it be done." Today, I am forever jealous of America's Constitution. No matter which crazies are elected, they face an extreme uphill battle to remove basic rights. Sadly I do not see the UK/AU/NZ/CAN creating their own Constitutions. Those in power understand it would limit their p…
Each of those countries you list already has a constitution. The Australian constitution requires both the majority of the people and the majority of the states to all votes yes in a referendum to the change. It isn't easy to modify.